When you say the same exact negative thing in dozens of posts, I think it's time to stfu, seriously.
How about this instead?
I'm POSITIVE Harry is a bust.
Registered Members experience this forum ad and noise-free.
CLICK HERE to Register for a free account and login for a smoother ad-free experience. It's easy, and only takes a few moments.When you say the same exact negative thing in dozens of posts, I think it's time to stfu, seriously.
How about you're a loser and the rest of us would like you to stop posting here.How about this instead?
I'm POSITIVE Harry is a bust.
How about this instead?
I'm POSITIVE Harry is a bust.
Harry was faster and more mobile than Benjamin coming out of college... and you're comparing him to an old Kelvin. Just absurd.
Harry has similar athleticism to AJ Brown, Terrell Owens, Josh Gordon and Mike Evans... that's actually in the measurables.
Eyeball tests are about as useful as a knuckle in my johnson.
How about you're a loser and the rest of us would like you to stop posting here.
That plus one dollar will win you a bet vs the Duke brothers...BB’s definition of “good” is all that qualifies...
Yep...one way or the other...Thread has great comedic potential to be upped once season is done.
Truth hurts sometimes, I know...How about you're a loser and the rest of us would like you to stop posting here.
If they have similar height, weight, wingspan, speed, agility, explosion and strength then yes, I can compare them athletically.You can’t compare him to those guys and call someone else comparison absurd
How about Brady's lack of practice time early on with those two players held them back, and his inability to practice during the season exacerbated the problem.Brady was holding Myers/Harry back they will be Hall of Fame players, am I doing this right?
If they have similar height, weight, wingspan, speed, agility, explosion and strength then yes, I can compare them athletically.
It doesn't mean they'll be the same player, it means they compare athletically... so when one says Harry is a bad/slow/not good athlete they'd be outright wrong. Its like saying Jason McCourty looks nothing like Devin.
A player can be a great athlete and still be a bad WR. If Harry doesn't thrive it won't be due to his athleticism but rather his health, what's between his ears or the desire in his heart. Saying he's slow or a bad athlete is wrong, they actually measure athleticism.
"Not playing to your timed speed," falls under intelligence and desire to work at your craft. Judging from Harry's offseason workouts posted online, he's working at his craft.So your position is that all good college players who test well at the combine "thrive" in the NFL provided they are healthy, intelligent and have a strong desire to succeed? You don't think there's such a thing as not playing to your timed speed? They can measure anything they want, but it doesn't mean those measurements show up on the field. There is a skill to beating DBs. Harry does not possess that skill, rendering his combine results irrelevant.
More like hundreds of posts in every thread.When you say the same exact negative thing in dozens of posts, I think it's time to stfu, seriously.
"Not playing to your timed speed," falls under intelligence and desire to work at your craft. Judging from Harry's offseason workouts posted online, he's working at his craft.
Since you've seen Harry all of 2 minutes and are generally a Negative Nancy, nothing you say can be taken seriously. In your estimation every young prospect sucks... until they don't.
It could be described as a "safe" position to take given the tenuous nature of rookies, but that's not what I'd call it.
It's much more than what? Harry was wildly successful in college, he was good in spurts for the Patriots in what can only be described as a dysfunctional passing attack, and issues with passing went way beyond the "talent" of the receivers.It's much more than that...playing to your timed speed would first require you to get around/through/by the defender covering you (in a man to man situation). Harry has never shown that ability. He succeeded in college because the skill wasn't as crucial vs the competition he was facing. It is a necessary skill now, and he doesn't possess it.
It's much more than what? Harry was wildly successful in college, he was good in spurts for the Patriots in what can only be described as a dysfunctional passing attack, and issues with passing went way beyond the "talent" of the receivers.
You're suggesting the only measure of "good" is your arbitrary eyeball test which the rest of us have to take on faith is correct. Assuming Stidham is any good, let's see how these same WR's from last year look in a fully functioning and healthy passing attack.
In an injury shortened season with a disgruntled QB who prefers name brand weapons to rookie WR's.The measure of "good" for a WR is being able to get open and catch the ball. Harry is bad at 50% of that.
Good in spurts? He had 12 catches.